27 research outputs found

    Rights Myopia in Child Welfare

    Get PDF
    For decades, legal scholars have debated the proper balance of parents\u27 rights and children\u27s rights in the child welfare system. This Article argues that the debate mistakenly privileges rights. Neither parents\u27 rights nor children\u27s rights serve families well because, as implemented, a solely rights-based model of child welfare does not protect the interests of parents or children. Additionally, even if well-implemented, the model still would not serve parents or children because it obscures the important role of poverty in child abuse and neglect and fosters conflict rather than collaboration between the state and families. In lieu of a solely rights-based model, this Article proposes a problem-solving model for child welfare and explores one embodiment of such a model, family group conferencing. This Article concludes that a problem-solving model holds significant potential to address many of the profound theoretical and practical shortcomings of the current child welfare system

    How Much Rugby is Too Much? A Seven-Season Prospective Cohort Study of Match Exposure and Injury Risk in Professional Rugby Union Players.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Numerous studies have documented the incidence and nature of injuries in professional rugby union, but few have identified specific risk factors for injury in this population using appropriate statistical methods. In particular, little is known about the role of previous short-term or longer-term match exposures in current injury risk in this setting. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate the influence that match exposure has upon injury risk in rugby union. METHOD: We conducted a seven-season (2006/7-2012/13) prospective cohort study of time-loss injuries in 1253 English premiership professional players. Players' 12-month match exposure (number of matches a player was involved in for ≥20 min in the preceding 12 months) and 1-month match exposure (number of full-game equivalent [FGE] matches in preceding 30 days) were assessed as risk factors for injury using a nested frailty model and magnitude-based inferences. RESULTS: The 12-month match exposure was associated with injury risk in a non-linear fashion; players who had been involved in fewer than ≈15 or more than ≈35 matches over the preceding 12-month period were more susceptible to injury. Monthly match exposure was linearly associated with injury risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14 per 2 standard deviation [3.2 FGE] increase, 90% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.20; likely harmful), although this effect was substantially attenuated for players in the upper quartile for 12-month match exposures (>28 matches). CONCLUSION: A player's accumulated (12-month) and recent (1-month) match exposure substantially influences their current injury risk. Careful attention should be paid to planning the workloads and monitoring the responses of players involved in: (1) a high (>≈35) number of matches in the previous year, (2) a low (<≈15) number of matches in the previous year, and (3) a low-moderate number of matches in previous year but who have played intensively in the recent past. These findings make a major contribution to evidence-based policy decisions regarding match workload limits in professional rugby union

    P2X7 in Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutics

    Get PDF
    P2X7 is a transmembrane receptor expressed in multiple cell types including neurons, dendritic cells, macrophages, monocytes, B and T cells where it can drive a wide range of physiological responses from pain transduction to immune response. Upon activation by its main ligand, extracellular ATP, P2X7 can form a nonselective channel for cations to enter the cell. Prolonged activation of P2X7, via high levels of extracellular ATP over an extended time period can lead to the formation of a macropore, leading to depolarization of the plasma membrane and ultimately to cell death. Thus, dependent on its activation state, P2X7 can either drive cell survival and proliferation, or induce cell death. In cancer, P2X7 has been shown to have a broad range of functions, including playing key roles in the development and spread of tumor cells. It is therefore unsurprising that P2X7 has been reported to be upregulated in several malignancies. Critically, ATP is present at high extracellular concentrations in the tumor microenvironment (TME) compared to levels observed in normal tissues. These high levels of ATP should present a survival challenge for cancer cells, potentially leading to constitutive receptor activation, prolonged macropore formation and ultimately to cell death. Therefore, to deliver the proven advantages for P2X7 in driving tumor survival and metastatic potential, the P2X7 macropore must be tightly controlled while retaining other functions. Studies have shown that commonly expressed P2X7 splice variants, distinct SNPs and post-translational receptor modifications can impair the capacity of P2X7 to open the macropore. These receptor modifications and potentially others may ultimately protect cancer cells from the negative consequences associated with constitutive activation of P2X7. Significantly, the effects of both P2X7 agonists and antagonists in preclinical tumor models of cancer demonstrate the potential for agents modifying P2X7 function, to provide innovative cancer therapies. This review summarizes recent advances in understanding of the structure and functions of P2X7 and how these impact P2X7 roles in cancer progression. We also review potential therapeutic approaches directed against P2X7

    Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

    Get PDF

    Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

    Get PDF
    Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

    Cost burden associated with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in Europe and influence of disease stage

    No full text
    Abstract Background Although evidence suggests that stage of disease may influence costs associated with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there remains a relative paucity of data on the financial burden incurred directly by patients and their informal caregivers as they progress through the disease course. As part of a large, cross-sectional study of the “real-world” humanistic and financial burden of advanced NSCLC in Europe, an analysis was conducted to quantify the cost burden of disease from a patient and caregiver perspective, and to evaluate how stage of disease impacts these costs. Methods Financial data were collected (May 2015–June 2016) during a multinational (France, Germany, and Italy) cross-sectional study of adults with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB–IV) and their informal (unpaid) caregivers. Data were obtained via medical chart reviews and patient/caregiver self-completion forms. Costs were annualized and unadjusted or adjusted for government financial support. Statistical significance was assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results One thousand thirty patients and 427 accompanying caregivers were recruited and asked to provide cost data. Mean total unadjusted direct and indirect out-of-pocket expenses were €5691 for patients and €4125 for caregivers; after adjusting for government financial support, values were €2644 and €3477. Mean wage losses were significantly higher for patients with stage IV vs IIIB NSCLC (€2282 vs €499; p = 0.0135) as were unadjusted direct out-of-pocket expenses (€4020 vs €1546; p = 0.0306). For caregivers, a similar but non-significant trend was observed. Mean total unadjusted direct and indirect out-of-pocket costs were numerically higher for stage IV vs IIIB NSCLC among patients (€5925 vs €3528) and caregivers (€4319 vs €2232); government financial support normalized patient costs, but they remained numerically higher for stage IV disease among caregivers. Conclusions The financial burden of advanced NSCLC is considerable and appears to be influenced by stage of disease, with direct and indirect costs increasing as the disease progresses. Government financial support programmes appear to mitigate additional cost burdens among patients, but not among caregivers
    corecore